Apple eats into Android, Samsung marketshare in Q2, study says

Apple improved its position in the smartphone space during the June quarter, eroding Android's share and equalizing its standing with rival Samsung in the U.S. market, according to new research.

Consumer Intelligence Research Partners found the U.S. smartphone market further consolidated in the quarter ending in June, with iOS improving its take from the year prior. Apple accounted for 36 percent of U.S. activations for the three-month period, compared to 63 percent for Android

"Apple iOS improved its share of activations relative to last quarter and to one year ago," said Josh Lowitz, partner and co-founder of CIRP. "This reverses the trend from a year ago, when Apple's share fell relative to the March 2017 quarter. As we've seen before, consumers have become increasingly loyal to an operating system."

Lowitz sees a bifurcated market, with Android ultimately settling at two-thirds of activations and iOS at one-third.

CIRP based its findings on a poll of 500 people who activated a new phone during the second quarter of 2018.

Apple's share of the market has fluctuated over the preceding quarters, dipping to a low last September before climbing back to an 18-month high in December on the back of seasonal sales.

Apple reported its best holiday quarter ever in February, though iPhone sales were down 1.2 percent year over year, reaching 77.3 million units. The downturn was offset by a sky-high average selling price of $796.42 fueled by a strong performance from the premium priced iPhone X.

Moving to brand loyalty, Apple increased its share of the U.S. market in the second quarter, ending the period with a 36 percent share of activations. Samsung also garnered 36 percent of the market after taking the lead from iPhone in March.

"Apple improved in part at Samsung's expense, whose share of activiations [sic] declined relative to both last quarter and last year," said Mike Levin, partner and co-founder of CIRP. "In a quarter without any significant phone launches, Samsung had market share only equal to Apple's. A year ago, Samsung had a considerably greater share of sales."

Looking ahead, Lowitz sees a further consolidation of smartphone sales with Apple and Samsung leading the way. Smaller players like LG and Motorola have lost ground over the past year, a trend that is expected to continue in the months ahead.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

yeah, but rich people only buy iPhones because they're dumb (even though facts say otherwise.)

Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple.

Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products.

Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android.

The amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either.

Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

yeah, but rich people only buy iPhones because they're dumb (even though facts say otherwise.)

Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple.

Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products.

Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android.

The amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either.

Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.

Please educate me. What am I missing? Anyone?

Not missing a thing. When compared to profits, market share is meaningless. The only thing I would have said is that market share is important for app developers, but even this is not as straightforward as it looks. Developers are now focusing on the platform with the largest share of valuable customers (ones that actually buy apps or subscriptions), rather than just the biggest share of customers.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

Apple products are currently aspirational products in India. Going by the way Apple does business (not getting into a race to the bottom based on price, ensuring a premium experience in stores, etc.), it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

It's just a question of the middle class getting a little more affluent and having a little more disposable income.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

But maybe the culture in India is as such that the growing middle class is not that interested in status symbols. Which could indeed be problematic for Apple.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

But maybe the culture in India is as such that the growing middle class is not that interested in status symbols. Which could indeed be problematic for Apple.

I'm open to that possibility, but after studying cultures, new and old, for a very long time, I'm never seen anything that would indicate that those with some disposable cash won't try to project as if they have more cash than really do. Therefore, I contend that if Apple and their relatively inexpensive CE as status symbols aren't popular in India it's not because human nature in India has evolved, but that Apple is no longer of interest to them… which, as a stockholder, is something I hope doesn't occur when the time comes.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

But maybe the culture in India is as such that the growing middle class is not that interested in status symbols. Which could indeed be problematic for Apple.

My guess is that theory goes against human nature. Which lies deeper than any cultural overlay. See also, gold and India’s love of the shiny stuff. See also caste system. Etc.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

yeah, but rich people only buy iPhones because they're dumb (even though facts say otherwise.)

Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple.

Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products.

Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android.

The amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either.

Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.

Please educate me. What am I missing? Anyone?

Not missing a thing. When compared to profits, market share is meaningless. The only thing I would have said is that market share is important for app developers, but even this is not as straightforward as it looks. Developers are now focusing on the platform with the largest share of valuable customers (ones that actually buy apps or subscriptions), rather than just the biggest share of customers.

I'd say market share is very important - when you're comparing Apples to Apples. Apple has, by far, the highest market share for flagship devices. Which also means it has the highest market share of, as you mentioned, "valuable" customers who spend money.

Back when Samsung used to report sales figures for their Galaxy and Note devices, it was noted that Samsung outsold all other Android vendors combined (in the high-end space). With Apple selling over 3x (maybe even 4x) as many iPhones as Samsung does Galaxy/Note, it's not a stretch at all to claim that the iPhone outsells every other flagship device on the planet COMBINED. HTC, Lenovo, Sony, Samsung, HTC, Pixel, LG, Motorola, OnePlus - the whole lot of them can't even catch up to the iPhone.

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

yeah, but rich people only buy iPhones because they're dumb (even though facts say otherwise.)

Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple.

Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products.

Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android.

The amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either.

Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.

Please educate me. What am I missing? Anyone?

You are missing that Apple's smartphone sales have been flat for a few years now.

Also, Apple's percentage of industry profit was slipping (it went down to an estimated 60%) before the release of iPhone X (for which we only have two quarters of real data). That data was enough to push industry profit back up a little, though. It will probably slip again as the market saturates even further.

Also Apple changed its strategy in an major way in response to those factors by offering its widest smartphone and price spread ever.

That change in tactics was a reaction to market realities. Realities that have affected practically every manufacturing industry that ever existed: Saturation, commoditisation and competition.

Although no one wants to say it, we are possibly in a 'post iPhone' era in terms of the importance of the iPhone within Apple's business model. You only have to look at the services arm, the car project and the content creation efforts (those last two, multi-billion dollar efforts) to see that Apple is already looking to seek growth beyond the phone hardware platform.

The iPhone has been lacking in several areas for quite a while now (battery tech, fast charging, modems etc). Technical problems (software and iPhone 6 batteries for example) have also been an issue. Apple's release cycle isn't as dynamic as competitors either, leaving the company out of the limelight for months and with no possible reaction to advances produced during the year. Features have also hit a wall (perhaps temporary) as most people can get more than they need a far lower prices and with very high quality handsets. People aren't actually clamouring to get into the walled garden either.

Coming from me, you will be shaking your head and saying 'I've heard this all before'. That's true and I've heard the same from you many times but it's no less true that I have largely been right with what I've said and even with half the year already gone, Apple's unit shipments look to be largely flat again and if rumours are to be believed, 'cheaper' is once again on the cards for the autumn refresh. If that is true, it will be solely down to the effects of those market realities.

"Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple."

That looks to be two observations in one. Marketshare in general and the effects of marketshare at the low end.

I will give Huawei as an example for two reasons. One, I know a bit about them and two, I don't know enough about the other possible example: Samsung.

While iPhone shipments have flattened out, Huawei sales have quite literally gone through the roof. And that is with protectionist measures in place to prevent them competing in the US market (the second largest premium market)

Clearly it is taking more and more share of the market which itself has flattened in the developed world and that marketshare is providing the economies of scale in manufacturing, visibility and greater profits that you mention. Also, it is achieving this without lock-in and with a lower ASP (something that is irrelevant to consumers anyway). With the sole exception of the US, visibility is on par with Samsung and in some (many?) places, far, far higher than Apple.

When you say 'Android', did you mean Android handset manufacturers or just Android as a platform?

As a Google provided platform the big winner is Google but clearly handset manufacturers have the benefit of not having to brew their own OS while being able to heavily modify the user experience and add brand specific technologies.

"The amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either."

Most, if not all the apps the vast majority of people need, are already available on both platforms and most people upgrade now so there is little actual user installiing happening (once you sign into the Play Store). If you are producing generic hardware (not HomeKit hardware for example) and have a connected app, it is in your interest to provide Android coverage precisely due to marketshare. My toilet has an app to control it. You don't need to have an iPhone to get a good cleaning. There is an Android version of the app.

Who has the most profits is irrelevant. After all, only one company can hold that position and even if it were Samsung it wouldn't change anything. The key is to have a healthy business. By the way, if Apple earns the most profits, where are they? Looking at Apple's cash hoard and how it has grown it seems that most of it is, and always has been, simply sitting in the bank.

Moving back to Huawei, they have invested at least 10% of revenues in R&D for years and have over 80,000 employees working in that field around the world.

You already know approximately how many patents Huawei licences to Apple and the millions Apple has paid to Huawei for the privilege. The upshot is that the best phone available in the eyes of many people today is not the iPhone X but the P20 Pro which flies in the face of the 'race to the bottom' and 'low end' labels that get applied to Android manufacturers. In fact, long before the iPhone X was released, Huawei had its ultra premium line which was priced way over 1,000 dollars. It's actually around 2,000 dollars now. The reality is that all manufacturers have a spread of products that passes through many price bands and although for years, the mantra here was that Apple was a premium only brand and wouldn't sacrifice the premium bands to provide a range of phones at lower prices, that process actually started and was developed further last year, leaving Apple with the exact same offering as Samsung, Huawei and many other manufacturers. The only difference is that competitors cover a wider band of prices (at the high and low ends) and offer more models.

If growth and marketshare weren't important, Apple wouldn't be bothering with India at all in strategic sense. Marketshare IS important both on a platform level and hardware level although you can still make money with a minuscule marketshare if that is your goal and you do things right and you have a little luck.

One of Apple's problems is that, company wide, the share price exerts high expectations on the company and any dip in unit sales (even an understandable dip) will see the stock pummeled.

However, this article is based on a claim that arose fron the result of interviewing 500 people (if I'm reading it right). I see more than 500 people a week and could conduct a similar survey and get the opposite results. I see little validity in the results (which are also US centric anyway) and of little real interest.

And be careful with the term 'lock in', Maggie could be reading this and you know Google just got a smack ;-).

We’re talking about the U.S. market, right? Get ready for the “yeah, but” comments.

Yeah, but... look at India where everything possible has gone wrong with iPhone activations. Apple may win slightly on one front but accrues major losses on another front.

Long term Apple needs to get India. Not necessarily today, but when their middle class starts to grow wildly if Apple isn't the company they turn to for obtainable status symbols they could be problematic.

But maybe the culture in India is as such that the growing middle class is not that interested in status symbols. Which could indeed be problematic for Apple.

I guess you know very little about Indian philosophers throughout history.